Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Beqa Lagoon is not listed as a KBA but it has a high species reange-size rarity and was recognised as a priority conservation area by Fiji in 2003.
Evidence B:The project areas is the Beqa Lagoon, which is the largest enclosed lagoon in Fiji spanning around 400 km2 and surrounded by an approximate 70 km barrier reef. The Beqa Lagoon Seascape, comprising nearshore, offshore and island areas encompasses a variety of ecosystems. Beqa Lagoon is one of Fiji’s Marine Eco-Regions, and was designated a national Priority Conservation Area in 2003. In 2018 Beqa Lagoon was afforded the highest level of recognition by Fiji’s Protected Area Committee as a ‘Biophysically Special and Unique Marine Area. Proposals are under way to have the Beqa Lagoon considered for designation as an internationally recognized Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) under IMO. It is an important biodiversity area in Fiji and in the Pacific region.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: HIgh level of irrecoverable carbon
Evidence B:The Beqa Lagoon Seascape, comprising nearshore, offshore and island areas encompasses a variety of Ecosystems within the project site have high value as a carbon sink, and include seagrass meadows, and mangrove forests. Primary and secondary rainforest is also included within the project site.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: This project supports village conservation management which is led by IP governance systems.
Evidence B:the project has a mix of natural resource management arrangements involving both traditional owners and contemporary government statutes and agencies. The Beqa Lagoon Seascape project aims to strengthen empowerment of IPLC (iTaukei) communities regarding management of their natural resources. The iTaukei Lands Act recognizes and maintains customary ownership of iTaukei lands, and provides a legal basis for traditional communal decision-making about land use and management of terrestrial resources. The iTaukei have employed traditional community-based natural resource management strategies for generations and these will be enhanced and strengthened through this project.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The proposal lists the most significant cultural heritage sites of Beqa Lagoon and Island which are of national as well as local significance.
Evidence B:The EoI explains the unique cultural significance of the project, through reference to traditional practices and activities
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The range of threats are clearly listed in the proposal. They include poor land use, invasive species, overfishing etc. The list is complete and the threats are real.
Evidence B:There are a number of high level threats and these are outlined in the project document. These include: (a) unsustainable fishing; land clearing and degradation, including through coastal development; (c) rapidly increasing solid and organic waste pollution; and (d) damage to reefs from vessels.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Village, district and provincial authorities, all Indigenous, are already active in conservation initiatives in the Beqa Lagoon - this is supported by the Government and will be further strengthened by the partnership with the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs especially through its Integrated Village Development Program.
Evidence B:Legal and policy frameworks are in place which recognise rights over lands and resources, in particular through The iTaukei Lands Act which recognizes and maintains customary ownership of iTaukei lands. However, the EoI recognizes further work is required to better link customary and western law and policies and this is envisaged in the project
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: The Rewa and Serua Provincial Councils are already supporting IPLC led conservation in Beqa lagoon.
Evidence B:The project suggests that national or sub-national governments in Fiji support IPLC-led conservation efforts
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: This project builds on village level national resource management committees as well as the Beqa Lagoon NRMC and supports local level projects. These projects have been going for 3 years.
Evidence B:The project (Section 4) indicates a number of IPLC initiatives in and around the project area. These include: (a) the establishment of village level Natural Resource Management Committee (NRMC); (b) the establishent of a formal management agreement for Beqa Island in place, involving “unprecedented”island wide agreement; and (c) initiation of a number of on ground indigenous community led projects.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: This project complements six other projects all of which are coherent and will ensure a ‘holistic’ conservation and livelihoods approach for Beqa Lagoon.
Evidence B:There are a number of complementary projects in and around the project site and these appear to strongly align with the objectives of the project
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The purpose of the Beqa Lagoon Seascape aligns very well with ICI’s overall objective and may be used as an example for other existing and potential seascapes in Fiji. It also builds on FLMMA’s work which is all about ICI’s objective.
Evidence B:The project and its activities is well aligned with the ICI objective of “Enhancing Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?” The project will strengthen efforts of the iTaukei to traditionally manage land and water resources within the project site
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The project is coherent and addresses conservation with improved resource management, livelihood opportunities and provides an educational dimension which is important for future generations and can be an example for other parts of Fiji.
Evidence B:Activities and outcomes are clearly outlined in section 8 of the EoI. These provide a cohesive approach to achieving overall project objectives.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The project is based on a sound assessment of current conditions in the Beqa Lagoon area (islands and sea) and a good understanding of community and governance contexts.
Evidence B:Activities address priority threats and issues although long term approach will be required to effectively address these threats in the longer term
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: The project proposal has clear activities and outcomes listed.
Evidence B:Activities/results in the EoI appear well aligned with the EoI range of investment
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: There are a number of organisations and donors supporting key projects that will complement the project.
Evidence B:A range of sources of co-financing are outlined, although it is difficult to ascertain exact amounts
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: Although the number of hectares is 40,000 and thus considered low as per the above measurement, the actual value and benefits of the proposal are high because of its possible replication. In other words it’s not about quantity but about quality.
Evidence B:Project estimates total area under improved management (Hectares) will be 40,000 ha
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: These are clearly listed here and in question 16.
Evidence B:Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators are clearly outlined in Section 13 and appear clearly relevant to the project goals
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The project sets the framework for enabling IPLCs to manage the lagoon area in collaboration with government and private sector partners in a way that is sustainable in the long term.
Evidence B:The EoI Section 16 indicates that this project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding and frameworks will support and build on
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The response in question 14 addresses both the NBSAP and NDC priorities the project aligns with.
Evidence B:The project links with and supports the elements of the Fiji NBSAP and other related policy documents, as outlined in section 14.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The EOI provides a clear understanding of the need to ensure that both men and women are key actors and beneficiaries of the project.
Evidence B:Gender mainstreaming appears integrated through this project
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: This project, through its support of traditional authorities and local governance systems has the potential to be replicated in different parts of Fiji and be an example also at the regional (Pacific level) as well as at the global level
Evidence B:the proposed activities and results demonstrate a medium-high potential for innovation and transformation
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: Although Pacific Blue Foundation is not strictly IPLC led, it has a long experience of working with IPLCs and its team is composed of IP.
Evidence B:The project is led by a charitable non profit NGO with a number of IPLC and partner organisations.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: Pacific Blue Foundation has a good track record of working in the Beqa Lagoon area and is trusted by IPLCs.
Evidence B:It is anticipated the project scope will achieve effective on ground IPLC leadership
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The EoI defines the clear roles of IPLC organisations will play in the project implementation and governance, It has clear support from the partners as indicated in the annexes provided.
Evidence B:IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance)
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The lead in the EoI has experience with GEF funded projects and the skills required
Evidence B:The lead proponent has technical capacity and it appears this capacity, and that of partners, will be strengthened through the project
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: All criteria are met
Evidence B:EoI notes PBF budget for IPLC conservation programs implemented and currently underway through the BLI since 2017 are listed as around $251K. EoI further notes experience with other projects including those through UNDP/GEF, as well as noting a number of organisational and project audits.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: The EoI doesn’t specifically mention safeguards required by GEF.
Evidence B:Has been a recipient of GEF grants, and experience with GEF safeguards and other standards is assumed. EoI notes the organisation has undertaken due diligence with funders, partners and collaborators under local, national and international policies and regulations. Detailed explanation is not outlined in the project document.